We the faithful must speak out to defend all life

Re: “Our moral blind spot” (Editorial, Sept. 3-9).

The Twitterverse and other devices of media mania should be shouting from the rooftops about this outrage.

But, the most that I see is a murmur — barely a whisper of concern. And when concern is expressed, it is closed down by “authorities.”

The big question is: How long can we remain quiet? When the official line is: “We don’t want to disturb the conscience,” we need to recognize that a big red flag is being waved in front of us, and it is highly likely that we are dealing with a serious issue of conscience that is crying for attention.

Michael Plummer, via online comment

Violent protests

Re: “A revolution of love” (Editorial, Aug. 27-Sept. 2).

The authors rightly point out the need to “foster a culture in which every person is able to flourish in accordance with his or her inherent dignity as one loved by God” and the need to “shun anger, hatred, demeaning words, racism, terrorism, bigotry [and] death. ...” The authors also specifically cite the incident in which James Alex Fields Jr., a man “infatuated with Nazis” and ‘alt-right’ symbolism,” killed a woman with his car.

However, the authors make no specific mention of the leftist counterprotesters. Some showed up with baseball bats and firearms. I submit that some of these leftists were looking for a fight. Though it is right to speak out against bigotry and hatred, I think that this should be done with prudence. The counterprotesters could have scheduled their event on another day. Had they done so, violence might have been prevented and the deceased woman might be alive today.

Diane Isabelle Reinke, Silver Spring, Maryland

Trafficking

Re: “Claire’s House to welcome trafficking victims” (News Analysis, Aug. 27-Sept. 2).

The story regarding the establishing of Claire’s House for housing sex traffic victims was very interesting. It’s hoped this new facility is a success, since this human depravity must be reduced as much as possible, even if it is only 12 beds at a time.

Charles J. Lemont, Shelby Township, Michigan

Saying ‘yes’ to God

Re: “An opportunity for a ‘yes’ in the ‘no-ness’” (Openers, Aug. 13-19).

You beautifully express the truth behind God’s call to repentance. This “no” to whatever is opposed to God’s love and wisdom is simply the prerequisite to a “yes” to fullness and abundance of life.

Sin and joy are mutually exclusive. God’s will for us — if we will have it — is joy. Whether the issue is moral purity or social justice, same-sex “marriage” or the abuse and neglect of immigrants and refugees, our well-being as individuals and as a nation depends on our coming into agreement with God and with all he has revealed to us in his word. To experience that, we must first say “no” to what God says “no” to. Then we will be free to say “yes” to Christ and to all the treasures of love and joy that are ours in him.

Margret Meyer, Jacksonville, Florida

Non-negotiables

Re: “Health Care” (Letters to the Editor, Aug. 20-26).

The writer seems to imply that we are heading for a government takeover of health care. Certainly the ACA (aka Obamacare) is a far cry from a “government takeover,” and none of the repeal-and-replace proposals have been in that direction, either. As for the writer’s concern over support of the “five non-negotiable principles of the Church,” I am surprised to learn that there are only five. Whatever the writer assumes the five to be, I would expect that they include torture, racism and terrorism. My question then would be: Just how would a government takeover of health care affect these three non-negotiable principles?

A secondary question would be: What are the other two of the five non-negotiable principles that the writer has in mind?

Deacon Joseph Keenan, Netcong, New Jersey
Top-Viewed Articles
The most popular stories on OSV.com this week included: